It's my opinion that "adolescence" is a new social construct that is not universal and not innate. It's more likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else.
In older times, teenagers (above say, 14) were considered men, or young adults. They would fight in armies, or even lead them. They were likely to be married and maybe even have children.
For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life. The only reason they "rebel" is that society still treats them like children. Imagine a 30 year old man being treated as a little hopeless child by his parents; of course he will show signs of resentment. It's not because he's "crazy", it's the natural response.
Perhaps the reason is partly due to school. If you're in school (below university/college level) you're a child "by definition" so to speak (from the society's point of view).
If I was in charge, I would design the school system so that elementary and secondary school end by the age 14 and then when you're 15 you'd be already in college.
"For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life."
I totally disagree on this. There are remarkable physical differences between a 16 yo, and a 28yo.
Your mental capabilities are different, your hormonal level is completely different etc.
Yes, there are cultures or where teens are forced to act as adults to function in society, but that doesn't make them they have the same capabilities as of an adult, be either physical, or emotional/mental.
And, traditionally armies are staffed with 17-20 yo. Do you know why? Because they make better cannon fodder, and more likely to obey orders, take higher risks, which are correlated with the high testosterone levels that teens do have.
(BTW, I am 30, and when I was 16 I was basically acting as supervisor of a team of 12 workers when my family was building the house due to my father having heart problems. Yes, I was good with money, I could negotiate some, tell people what to do to a certain point, but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems).
> Yes, there are cultures or where teens are forced to act as adults to function in society, but that doesn't make them they have the same capabilities as of an adult
"Forced"? This is circular logic.
What makes you think they are forced? It seems every one here agrees that teenager want to be treated like adults.
The only reason to think they were forced is if you think they are still children at age 16. You provided yourself as your own counter example, so clearly at 16 you weren't a child.
> but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems
This is exactly what I mean by experience. Emotional intelligence and tact (as you put it) doesn't come suddenly when you're 22; it comes with experience. You could very easily be 30 and still lack these things. I would go further and say you are more likely to lack them if your parents keep treating you like a child and prevent you from doing adult stuff and experiencing the world outside of their "protection".
> (BTW, I am 30, and when I was 16 I was basically acting as supervisor of a team of 12 workers when my family was building the house due to my father having heart problems. Yes, I was good with money, I could negotiate some, tell people what to do to a certain point, but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems).
So basically you're saying you was more adept at 16 with dealing with other people, responsibility and money than the vast majority of college grads are in their mid-late 20's. So I'm failing to see your point.
Because of an education you wouldn't have otherwise received you were capable of doing tasks considered vastly beyond your age's observed responsibility level, seemingly even by yourself.
If you read between the lines, the authority of his office made it possible (and necessary) to order people around, but he didn't have the experience and training to be charismatic about it--he had not yet developed leadership skills.
Your point? Only good bosses have learnt leadership skills, bad bosses generally don't have the experience or training to be charismatic about it. I've seen far more bad bosses than good bosses.
The point you're making applies as much to a 40 year old boss as it does to a 16 year old boss. Leadership is an acquired skill without an age restriction, but people here on HN seem to want to instate an arbitrary age restriction on how they determine "too young" to be a boss. I really don't get why this would be when software and other tech industries are generally youth orientated and seen as ageist.
There are pretty remarkable physical differences between a 28yo and a 40yo, yet the legal and cultural differences between those ages are quite a bit less than between 16 and 28.
I'd ask you to cite your reasoning. The average age of first child in western societies is almost hitting the 30 year old mark, so I'd argue that (in western societies at least) there is a dramatic mental difference between those in their mid 20's over those in their mid-thirties.
How does the fact that the average age of first child in western societies hitting the 30 year old mark support the argument that there is a dramatic mental difference between those in their mid-20s and those in their mid-30s?
Maybe I don't have enough perspective. I'm only 23, and maybe I will think that I'm dramatically different when I'm 40. Right now, it just doesn't seem like it. Then again, most teenagers think the same way about being 23 (me included).
Not that per se, but wisdom increases with experience and age is a big factor in having experience. A 50 year old person is likely to have experienced much more than a 30 year old. So it's natural that you will find 16 year olds lacking in experience compared to say 28 year olds.
ardit33, there is NO PROOF whatsoever that these cognitive differences are a result of age and not experience. The brain is plastic; it's shaped directly by experiences.
If you never speak to a child from birth to 4 years old, it will be unable to learn to speak. That part of the brain will simply have not developed. There's no reason to believe that this is not true of all the other skills you mention.
If you had started doing that "supervisory" role 3 years earlier, you would have been great at it by 16. Similarly, most people start doing that sort of thing at 22, so at 22 they are where you were at 16, meaning they were 6 years behind.
I would agree on the construct part. Once, in college as a senior, an organization I was a member of was being criticized by an administrator who said, and I quote:
"You know what the problem with your org is- there's not enough adult supervision"
Keep in mind I was 23, and everyone in the room was over 20.
For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life.
This is demonstrably not true, and even says so in the article. The brains of a teenager are different than that of an adult. The question the article is asking is not "Are they differen?" because we know they are. The question the article is asking is "Is this difference caused by culture or biology?"
But in a way, the article is begging the question by presuming that the categories are objectively meaningful. What's a 'teenager' and what's an 'adult'?
If our brains are continuously changing throughout our lives, you'll see differences on either side of any arbitrary cutoff point.
> This is demonstrably not true, and even says so in the article. The brains of a teenager are different than that of an adult.
This is bad logic. It's not much different from saying "men and women are demonstrably different, therefore women should not have equal rights".
Of course they are different. 16 year olds are not the same as 40 year olds. It doesn't follow that 16 year olds are children who are just being rebellious and should be shunned down.
The claim (P) was that "For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life," with the implication that (Q) "therefore they should be treated the same." If P, then Q. I'm saying P is not true. I did not say that !P is enough to say !Q.
While I personally have concluded !Q, there is more to it than what I have brought up - but that was not my purpose in the post. I wanted to point out a false statement because it was being used to conclude something.
"For all intents and purposes" sort of already implies something along the lines of "ignoring the obvious differences, etc" in the same way that 30 year olds and 50 year olds are both adults despite the age difference.
That was not what I meant in my original reply. Teenagers' brains are different from that of an adult - different in a way that a 30-year-old and a 50-year-olds brains are not different.
So, to be clear, the original claim was that teenagers are adults minus the experience. That claim is demonstrably not true. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1241194... or any other story that pops up when you Google "teenage brains."
Consider the story of Romeo and Juliet. At an age where he has not yet grown a beard, Romeo has killed (at least) two men. He secretly marries his true love (and the Church blesses the marriage).
Imagine, if you can, the reaction of parents, churches and schools today to such behavior.
I'd see Romeo and Juliet as the quintessential adolescents - it's a tale of whirlwind romance, gang violence and complete absence of self control on the part of the key protagonists.
Isolated from the context of 16th century Verona and stripped of Shakespeare's poetic flair, the plot could easily be taken from a modern slushy teen drama.
There's another way to look at it (and I have to admit I read this somewhere and don't know the original well enough to judge whether it contradicts this notion): Romeo is actually much (on the order of 10 years) older than mid-teen Juliet.
And nobody considers that a scandal, compared to them acting against their families' wishes.
OK, some people say they didn't learn much from college classes, and therefore university was worthless (or wasn't worth the money). I disagree. University puts you in an environment that encourages learning and inquisition. You could argue that you learned alot more from wikipedia than classes, but if it weren't for university, would you even bother reading wikipedia?
I can guarantee you that for the vast majority of my classes it would have been better if I'd gone off and studied on my own, which I do. I also hardly ever learn anything from my classmates, except one or two friends.
In older times, teenagers (above say, 14) were considered men, or young adults. They would fight in armies, or even lead them. They were likely to be married and maybe even have children.
For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life. The only reason they "rebel" is that society still treats them like children. Imagine a 30 year old man being treated as a little hopeless child by his parents; of course he will show signs of resentment. It's not because he's "crazy", it's the natural response.
Perhaps the reason is partly due to school. If you're in school (below university/college level) you're a child "by definition" so to speak (from the society's point of view).
If I was in charge, I would design the school system so that elementary and secondary school end by the age 14 and then when you're 15 you'd be already in college.